LONGECITY

Here's a very nice answer to the question about determinism and QM (in 1st answer by Artem Kaznatcheev):

https://philosophy.s...ove-determinism

"Most serious researchers on the foundations of quantum mechanics, usually side-step this question by taking the operationalist point of view. Tagline: "all we have is some procedures for setting up an experiment and the results of experiments". In this framework, you can derive Bell's theorem, which says that any phenomena that is both deterministic and local must satisfy the Bell inequality. Quantum mechanics violates the Bell inequality (and there has been many experiments to mostly confirm this violation, there are some technical loopholes that need to be addressed in some of the experiments). This means that you must give up at least one: locality or determinism. Since without locality it becomes impossible to talk about causality, most people prefer not to give it up, and instead give up determinism."

Which one would you rather give up, causality or determinism or both? 

Is there an existing today method to show the DNA of the zygote, from which you started your life?

Here's a very nice answer to the question about determinism and QM (in 1st answer by Artem Kaznatcheev):

 

https://philosophy.s...ove-determinism

 

"Most serious researchers on the foundations of quantum mechanics, usually side-step this question by taking the operationalist point of view. Tagline: "all we have is some procedures for setting up an experiment and the results of experiments". In this framework, you can derive Bell's theorem, which says that any phenomena that is both deterministic and local must satisfy the Bell inequality. Quantum mechanics violates the Bell inequality (and there has been many experiments to mostly confirm this violation, there are some technical loopholes that need to be addressed in some of the experiments). This means that you must give up at least one: locality or determinism. Since without locality it becomes impossible to talk about causality, most people prefer not to give it up, and instead give up determinism."

 

Which one would you rather give up, causality or determinism or both? 

tumbling muddling IMO

Causality is determinism.

"Cause and effect" is the best way of expressing this

Is there an existing today method to show the DNA of the zygote, from which you started your life?

yup, the coming quantum archaeology grid. It's up to others to build it: we're philosophers.

But simple ones are used already in resurrection biology.

Where can I get more information about that used in used already in resurrection biology?

 

Here's a very nice answer to the question about determinism and QM (in 1st answer by Artem Kaznatcheev):

 

https://philosophy.s...ove-determinism

 

"Most serious researchers on the foundations of quantum mechanics, usually side-step this question by taking the operationalist point of view. Tagline: "all we have is some procedures for setting up an experiment and the results of experiments". In this framework, you can derive Bell's theorem, which says that any phenomena that is both deterministic and local must satisfy the Bell inequality. Quantum mechanics violates the Bell inequality (and there has been many experiments to mostly confirm this violation, there are some technical loopholes that need to be addressed in some of the experiments). This means that you must give up at least one: locality or determinism. Since without locality it becomes impossible to talk about causality, most people prefer not to give it up, and instead give up determinism."

 

Which one would you rather give up, causality or determinism or both? 

 

tumbling muddling IMO

 

Causality is determinism.

"Cause and effect" is the best way of expressing this.

Well, if things are non-local, the "cause" of what happened today could be in a far-away galaxy a billion light-years away. Obviously this will make prediction really difficult. 

Where can I get more information about that used in used already in resurrection biology?

Double Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling began work on it in the 1960's

here's his paper

http://actachemscand..._p0009-0016.pdf

https://en.wikipedia...i/De-extinction

https://en.wikipedia...ne_resurrection
 

and Quantum Archaeology (this site)

The Size of Calculation presently possible, determines the detail of what you can resurrect.

Because of the state of science we are only able to reconstruct detail about a species, not an individual. That will change as computing and maths and statistics improve, especially with Artificial Intelligence and hypercomputing.

They use found proteins ro reverse engineer the DNA that made that proteins, or try to reverse - evolve species.

This is interesting, but it can't rebuild your zygote DNA, that changed millions of times until you become an adult. 

So... nothing useful so far. Will wait for the others, who are non-pylosophical to do it.

They use found proteins ro reverse engineer the DNA that made that proteins, or try to reverse - evolve species.

 

This is interesting, but it can't rebuild your zygote DNA, that changed millions of times until you become an adult. 

 

So... nothing useful so far. Will wait for the others, who are non-pylosophical to do it.

yes. it can with science. With a good enough super-grid. It's inevitable that happens.

The world's perfect. That's what this thread is about. Perfect. Nothing error. No miss. No mistake.

Everything proceeds from laws.

Laws are high-level descriptions of patterns.

Everything that exists has a perfect history.
 

I agree we've done the philosophy, now it up to scientists.

WIKI

"One gram of uranium-238, a commonly occurring radioactive substance, contains some 2.5 x 10²¹ atoms. Each of these atoms are identical and indistinguishable according to all tests known to modern science. Yet about 12600 times a second, one of the atoms in that gram will decay, giving off an alpha particle. The challenge for determinism is to explain why and when decay occurs, since it does not seem to depend on external stimulus. Indeed, no extant theory of physics makes testable predictions of exactly when any given atom will decay. At best scientists can discover determined probabilities in the form of the element's half life."

I dont see the challenge.

The world of the small is not mapped yet.

Effects are there we cant see yet.

Spinoza was a determinist like Einstein, but the ignorant Quantum Theory hadn't muddled the minds of man then:)

Leucippus put it, an absolute necessity leaves no room in the cosmos for chance.

"Nothing occurs at random, but everything for a reason and by necessity."

οὐδὲν χρῆμα μάτην γίνεται, ἀλλὰ πάντα ἐκ λόγου τε καὶ ὑπ’ ἀνάγκης

apols,

my rights to edit timed out:

WIKI

"One gram of uranium-238, a commonly occurring radioactive substance, contains some 2.5 x 10²¹ atoms. Each of these atoms are identical and indistinguishable according to all tests known to modern science. Yet about 12600 times a second, one of the atoms in that gram will decay, giving off an alpha particle. The challenge for determinism is to explain why and when decay occurs, since it does not seem to depend on external stimulus. Indeed, no extant theory of physics makes testable predictions of exactly when any given atom will decay. At best scientists can discover determined probabilities in the form of the element's half life."

I dont see the challenge.

The world of the small is not mapped yet.

Effects are there we cant see yet.

Spinoza was a determinist like Einstein, but the ignorant Quantum Theory hadn't muddled the minds of man then:)

Leucippus put it, an absolute necessity leaves no room in the cosmos for chance.

Nothing occurs at random, but everything for a reason and by necessity."

 

I'm baffled how men can  accept there are laws but go on to think they are not deterministic: for cause and effect is a necessary consequence of there being laws.

To hold otherwise is to throw away logic.

If you understand that cause and effect is the rule of the environment, everything that we can observe and measure is shown to operate by it.

Only in those quantum areas of the very small, where we cannot see what's going on, is cause & effect said not to operate by QT-ists.

This is banned in philosophy as argument in ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam).

When scientists throw out philosophy, they have lost their reason.

Philosophy is not a muddled set of options, but a highly tested and demonstrably correct set of logical foundations, without which science historically drives down cul-de-sacs of phlogiston.

"http://www.pitt.edu/...index.html#L100

"That Einstein was uncomfortable with quantum theory attracted much attention and there have been many accounts of his reservations, some trying to locate their deeper sources. However these different accounts may vary, there is no doubt of Einstein's principal objection. He believed that the quantum wave function of some system, the ψ-function, was not a complete description of the system. Rather, it provided some sort of statistical summary of the properties of many like systems. (The term "ψ-function" is just an old fashioned term for the quantum wave. ψ is the Greek letter "psi.")"

 The little and the large theory of physics are incompatible. They have been forced together by what looks like a giant blunder in science, and despite QT being a statistical theory, the real explanations are as yet absent.

Did you choose between causality or deteminism yet? 

Also, I'd like to hear the hanged man's explanation of why people are conscious and what is the "use" of it. IMO consciousness is superfluous and useless in a clockwork automaton universe.

Determinism vs causality are a false dichotomy;consciousness/free will are pre-science terms.

But consciousness (making models of the environment and yourself give survival advantage

Everything that exists has energy and is in motion.

All actions are reactions. They can be compound reaction:

eg

a plant eating an animal

a different species of ape getting burned

Thoughts are just reactions that cause other thoughts. Sometimes they trigger as reactions from the environment via out senses. Other4times they are internal reactions.

What used to be called consciousness is the reaction processes of the brain thoughts, especially self-refective network nodes, plus the feed in from the senses.

Consciousness is a pre-science term for the workings of parts of the brain.

What you do tomorrow is inevitable. Everything you do..but everything in the environment around you is inevitable.

It cant be another way.

You can check this by tracing back counter-intuitive events of the past by reasoning.

When the past is uncovered..it is truly what happened.

If you follow the law of causation life will appear easier for you. Observing little things and making logical chains back to their causes gives you the power of a wizard!  You will see things that others dont and anticipate events that seem magic to those round you.

Teh quantum science has to show operation in the world of men-sizes to be credible: @ the moment it is the Emperor's New Clothes:

It looks like a fun topic. Haven't had a chance to look through everything, though.

There is something called "presentism." According to this view, there is only "present," this brief moment during which all perception occurs. There is no "past" - as it is something that resides only in our memory. We can't access the future. If the presentism were true, in light of QM, there would not be complete causality. There would be no determinism.  

In contrast to the presentism, there is also the view that time is an actual dimension of the world we live in. According to that view, we live in a 4-dimensional universe, passing through series of states. The future, the past, and the present exist. It is just that our perception is constrained to perceive the present.

So, I have been wondering whether one can actually verify whether we live in the Universe of presentism or the world that has at least 4 dimensions.  One way would be to figure out whether someone at NY city would perceive the world EXACTLY at the same time another person (say at Sydney Australia) perceives the world. Since we know the speed of light, and the distance between the two points, we should be able to figure out whether two beings perceive the world at exactly the same moment.

If the perception occurred concurrently for the two beings, we'd be living in the "present" only (assumption is that the perception occurred at the same time for everyone else). If the perception did not occur concurrently, then the "present" for one person would be the "future" for another. What would be the "present" would be the "past" for another. Hence, this would prove that the world exists in at least 4D.